Argument: Naturalistic Pantheism Has "Proof" of their "God"

I need some feedback on the assertion that Pantheists have proof of their god because their god is nature. This was brought up by someone on a forum after my response to a Creationist when I said that there is no proof for any gods (and alluded specifically to Abrahamic gods). The poster said that there is no proof for ANTHROPOMORPHIC gods - but then suggests that Pantheists have proof of their god because nature is god to them and nature exists.

Well he's arguing that because some people consider nature to be god, and nature exists, that equates proof of god and it doesn't. The CONCEPT of god being nature exists, sure. But that doesn't make it PROOF of god. There's no absolute certainty behind it and I'm not sure how they would even go about proving it either.

right he is dumb.. saying he thinks god is nature doesnt prove god exsist.. and then he said "it can " and he is just assuming.. you should be able to destroy this argument pretty easy .. in the end.. he still has not proven anything..

I did at the beginning and he just continued to call me ignorant even though he's the one who couldn't distinguish between a concept and actual proof. His main supporting argument was that since it wasn't an anthropomorphic god, it was considered proven because they saw their god as nature, which exists. So backwards.

tell him if that concept of proof was valid then he would have won a nobel award or somthing... the way he sees nature or the way he views the world has no bearing on actual proof of a god.. I would just say hey .. if nature is proof of a god for you that is great but thats is not proof for anyone other racinal human ..that s why you havent won any awards for your discovery becuse no one in their right mind considerds that proof

He's doing some serious mental gymnastics and going on about how everyone's interpretation is different, blahblahblah. But I'm like, there's a reason why we define things. There's a reason why the definition of "god" is not "a wooden writing utensil". There's actual meaning behind the word and he's trying to equate it with something else and pass it off as being proof. I just don't understand some people.